Grass-roots fight against coal withers

By Rob Golub

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:25 PM CDT

OAK CREEK - A hearing on the proposed expansion of the Oak Creek Power Plant wasn't the firestorm seen at public hearings in Racine months ago, but a nearly steady stream of local environmentalists took turns at the witness stand until the end of the day.

There were lulls as the 7 p.m. end time approached, suggesting the public's attention is not as focused as it once was on coal. There were a couple dozen in the room, not a couple hundred. Environmentalist activists say the sagging interest is due to a perception in the public that We Energies has won and the coal plant expansion is a sure bet. But that's not the case, they say.

In fact, SC Johnson and environmentalist attorneys are pursuing what they see as three key legal weak spots for We Energies. We Energies says it can prevail in court on each of the three points. The reported weak spots: 1. We Energies allegedly failed to consider alternative locations for the proposal that would not have disturbed so much wetland. We Energies responds that it will build new wetlands at twice the size, but environmentalists say constructed wetlands are inferior.

2. The Army Corps of Engineers sent an Aug. 13 list of questions to We Energies, with a fifteen-day deadline for a response. The letter from this branch of the U.S. Army warns of a federal requirement. Work on "waters of the United States," including wetlands, must not have unnecessarily adverse consequences.

The Corps' letter asks several questions, including a request for a list of alternative sites and the reasons why the Oak Creek site was selected. "This is just additional questions. That's normal," said Thad Nation, We Energies spokesman, when asked about the letter. He said the Corps has been part of the process all along.

3. Does We Energies have the right under state law to build on the shoreline without a vote of the state legislature? For We Energies, the answer is yes. Environmentalists disagree.

The above legal issues were the backdrop, but the law was not what members of the public arrived to talk about at the public hearing Tuesday. They talked about the issues. A few spoke in support of the plant expansion but most were opposed.

The public comments included: A PLEA: There was a plea from the president of the Lakeshore Fishermen Sports Club of Milwaukee. He's afraid environmentalist scientists are right, that the expansion will kill fish and harm ecosystems. "Can't you tell your bosses this is a bad deal?" Eric Skindzelewski said from a witness stand, looking at the We Energies lawyers. "Shame on you. It's going to be like a dead sea out there."

SLOW DOWN: "Put the breaks on this monster," said Richard Strauss, a resident of County Line Road. "I don't believe there's been an honest examination."

HARD WORK UNDONE: Kristen Willhelm said she is a Franklin member of a municipal environmental committee. She said all her work for four years saves less of the environment than We Energies will destroy.

EXPAND THE PLANT: Plant supporter Gary Billington, an Oak Creek businessman, said compromise is part of life and the environment is no different. He said the plant expansion is needed for a stable, affordable and abundant supply of electricity.

The hearing continues at a courtroom inside the Oak Creek Police station today and possibly tomorrow, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The public comment period is officially closed but Administrative Law Judge Jeff Boldt said he might be open to requests for an exception from members of the public.

The issues being considered at the hearing are impacts to the shoreline and the fill of wetlands. Boldt, serving in the Madison Division of Hearings and Appeals, is expected to issue a ruling in about 60 days. He can reject, accept or order modified the plans for the expansion based on shoreline and wetlands issues.

Air quality will be considered at another hearing that could come as early as September.

Special Offer: Get 5 Weeks of the Journal Times for $7!